ipod Classic needs Firewire

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
What is it with Apple and reuniting Firewire with the iPod? Firewire on the ipod was one of the greatest feature, they would not even have an portable music player if it was not for the lighting speed of tranfering thounands of songs in a mater of minutes. Then when they created the video ipod they remove the one feature that would have made it possiable to tranfer video quickly. What are they afraid of that the people will know the truth that USB 2.0 has only theoretical speeds while Firewire had constant speed. Come on the US military uses Firewire 800 on the F-22 because the now how fast it is. Profesional Video and photo editors use Firewire for its speed because USB 2.0 is bad. USb 2.0 requres to suppliment its speed with you CPU in order to look fast with out being fast. Do test you will see that data is faster even on an older machine using Firewire than on a newer "MActel" using USB 2.0.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    Actually, for point-to-point uses, USB 2.0 is just as good as Firewire. Firewire's strength is it's multi-point to multi-point MAC. This and its strong capability for high-rate isochronous transfer are why it's used in the F-22 instead of Ethernet, CAN, or anything else. Incidentally, video works well with Firewire for the same reasons: it's a real-time medium.



    Of course, USB can do isochronous transfers, too, just not nearly as fast or as well. It doesn't matter, though, because sync'ing an iPod is a burst transfer and does not require real-time signal determinism. USB's weaknesses are the requirement for tree-structure in the bus and the lack of dedicated control wires. But for many uses these detractors aren't big deals. However, the fact that it's a simpler and more widespread standard mean that simpler, cheaper, and lower power USB device chips are available for integration into iPods and the like. Using USB 2.0 cuts down on the iPod's cost and allows it to be smaller without making it perform any worse. USB is also a 5V bus and not a 12V bus, so when charging the iPod, a lot less heat gets dumped out of the internal charger. I'd say that's a design win. The only reason why Firewire was ever in the iPod is because USB 2.0 wasn't around during the early years of the iPod.
  • Reply 2 of 7
    Firewire died in the iPod when Apple went with a Windows version, as many Windows machines don't have Firewire. So don't look for Firewire to re-emerge on the iPod.
  • Reply 3 of 7
    kishankishan Posts: 732member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    Firewire's strength is it's multi-point to multi-point MAC. This and its strong capability for high-rate isochronous transfer are why it's used in the F-22 instead of Ethernet, CAN, or anything else.



    Floigan!





    Seriously though... firewire is driving this thing?



  • Reply 4 of 7
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kishan View Post


    Floigan!



    Seriously though... firewire is driving this thing?



    Thanks for that.



    I have no idea about the F-22, but the thread-starter claims it so. However, Firewire WOULD be a logical choice because of the reasons I mentioned. There's no other technology out there that is as fast and flexible.



    Firewire looks to have a renassaince soon with FW-over-coax/FW-over-CAT5, and potentially as a replacement for the CAN bus in the auto industry.
  • Reply 5 of 7
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    Thanks for that.



    I have no idea about the F-22, but the thread-starter claims it so. However, Firewire WOULD be a logical choice because of the reasons I mentioned. There's no other technology out there that is as fast and flexible.



    Firewire looks to have a renaissance soon with FW-over-coax/FW-over-CAT5, and potentially as a replacement for the CAN bus in the auto industry.



    Firewire to Cat connection will be known as IEEE 1394c I think with 1600 Mbps (I am doubling the speed of the current fastest Firewire 800, check wikipedia under firewire.) For me I need real time data transfer, it is much more logical than to bow over to the Intel Overloads like Apple did. I spent about $50,000 constructing my own prototype machine that runs faster and cooler based on a PowerPC and it also runs Mac OS X. with a few tweaks it can made to run Windows and Unix to. Apple's Intel macs can kiss my Intel Killer Firewire port. If you know anyone in the market to take on Apple and have rich investor friends I am willing to sell.
  • Reply 6 of 7
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LoneWarrior21 View Post


    What are they afraid of that the people will know the truth that USB 2.0 has only theoretical speeds while Firewire had constant speed.



    You are going off the false assumption that the 1.8-inch drives in the iPod classic can support anywhere near the speed of either USB 2.0 or FireWire.
  • Reply 7 of 7
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LoneWarrior21 View Post


    Firewire to Cat connection will be known as IEEE 1394c I think with 1600 Mbps (I am doubling the speed of the current fastest Firewire 800, check wikipedia under firewire.) For me I need real time data transfer, it is much more logical than to bow over to the Intel Overloads like Apple did. I spent about $50,000 constructing my own prototype machine that runs faster and cooler based on a PowerPC and it also runs Mac OS X. with a few tweaks it can made to run Windows and Unix to. Apple's Intel macs can kiss my Intel Killer Firewire port. If you know anyone in the market to take on Apple and have rich investor friends I am willing to sell.



    Uhh. . . great. Nobody is interested in the PPC anymore for PC or low to mid range servers -- in other words, the market that OS X caters to. Firewire, as you've pointed out, is hardly dead, but I'm not sure what you're going on about.



    I also doubt that you got a PPC machine to run Windows well.
Sign In or Register to comment.